October 21, 2014, 10:05:41 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - preppyak

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 53
I was quoted $1.12 per $100 insured, which comes to just over $80 per year for me. I put everything into a multi-page PDF and emailed it to them prior to meeting with my agent in-office.
Interesting, I must have just gotten a lazier agent who didn't want to put the work in. I think my value for VA was like 1.25 per $100 insured.

This weekend I actually did an inventory and added up the total, depreciated, used value of all my equipment, and came up with $1850.  Quite amazing, considering I have only paid out-of-pocket about $650 for all of it.  Seeing the total value of my kit makes me think insuring it would be a good idea.
Yeah, and I think the minimum value for a policy was $25, so you'd probably end up with about that as a premium. That said, I put in the replacement costs for my equipment, not their actual worth at that moment...since that is really what is important if I lose everything.

Lenses / Re: Im confused between IS and fstop advantages
« on: May 29, 2012, 03:17:22 PM »
I'd get the 135/2.
Agreed, and mostly because you won't be hand-holding the 135mm lens for video anyway...or if you do, even IS won't keep it from being shaky. You're just past the focal length where hand-held video works well.

AAA as an example is requesting copies of my receipts.   Don't really care to do that, does that seem to be the norm?
i'm going through USAA. i have 5k of coverage. for 60.00 a year. it covers my canon 7d, and lenses.
I'm going through State Farm (personal property insurance), and I think I have about $4k of stuff insured for about $50/yr. So probably pretty close in price to USAA, though I imagine USAA would generally be cheaper. It will vary by state. What's nice is it covers every circumstance...so even if I drop my camera bag off a cliff and its completely my fault, they'll replace it.

The caveat is that you cant be making any money off of your equipment or you'd be required to go the business route. Didn't need copies of my receipts at all...just gave them the camera/lens name and my serial # and the processed it pretty quickly.

I consider m43 to be a compact supplement but not a replacement for even an entry level dslr.
Yeah, that's sort of how I see it as well. I'd be far more likely to buy a M4/3rd camera and a zoom lens than a P+S if I needed something small and portable, because I'd want the control and expandability that interchangeable systems have....but, they aren't such a huge weight and size savings over my 60D that its worth it at the moment.

I will say, some of the NEX stuff is interesting, and Sony has been pushing really hard to improve. I'd put pretty good odds that I'll own the NEX-9 or whatever is is about 2-3 years from now, because my DSLR will be full-frame, and the NEX can be my outdoor adventure camera (to take with me in my kayak or on the trail on longer treks). They'll have a better set of lenses, and they'll likely have solved the AF issues. I could live with an EVF if that was the only major tradeoff.

But even with the situation now, aps-c has many advantages (longer reach, affordable good ultrawides) so that it'll stick around for some time to come simply because smaller sensors will keep being cheaper as larger ones. The Rebels will loose market share to mirrorless, but many people like me won't want to use an evf even if it's a good one
To take that a step further, the people that use APS-C at the upper levels (think 7D) are people like birders, sports guys, and nature photographers. Few if any of them would adapt to a M4/3rd camera because the EVF and AF limit them in all of those situations. Can't shoot sunrise or sunset shots of animals, because your EVF is dark and hard to see. Can't shoot birds or sports effectively because the AF is too slow.

That's not to say 4/3rds cameras won't solve some of their issues, they will, but there are some pretty major hurdles to climb to cover those use cases. And until they solve them, you won't see APS-C go away.

Also why make EF-S specific primes when Canon can make EF ones, which work for a MUCH broader audience, and when those lenses are pretty small anyway (if the 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 are too big, get a P+S). They only make EF-S lenses to solve a specific APS-C problem, like UWA (10-22), a  high quality lower light zoom (17-55), and light-weight zooms (55-250).

EOS Bodies / Re: T4i or 60D?
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:30:47 AM »
Compare to do what? The ergonomic advantages of the 60d still appliy, the touchscreen won't change that, so it's really a matter of usage scenario. But unless the sensor is seriously upgraded in dr or noise, people who can cough up the price difference should be still well-advised to get the xxd - which runs magic lantern. That is unless you want live view af, but we still need to see how it actually performs.
And for the first few months, there wont be a price difference (acually, 60D may be a bit cheaper). You can get a 60D w/ 18-135 refurb for $830ish+tax, T4i will probably retail for $899 or $999 with the 18-55 kit lens. I'd rather have the 60D's ergonomics and button layout unless the video AF is some revelation (Magic Lantern will hit the T4i fast enough).

Lenses / Re: DSLR Video: Canon 24mm 1.4L II vs 24mm 2.8 IS
« on: May 24, 2012, 08:53:35 AM »
I would either go much wider (I love the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 ) or go for a more standard lens, like a canon 28mm f2.8 or Canon 35mm f2.0.
He already has the Voigtlander 40mm f/2, so getting the 35 f/2 won't do him any good.

On the other end, for shooting casual stuff of friends and family, the Tokina is way too wide. It's a great lens if you know how to use it. But, of the lenses I own, it'd be the last one I would pick to shoot people, because of the distortion. Even at 16mm you'll find it annoying.

Personally I wouldn't spend that much on the 24mm f/1.4 just to shoot friends, but, if I had the money it'd be a nice lens to own. I think the IS primes are way overpriced, and you'd get more bang for your buck going another way. I'd either get one of the older non-IS primes and a decent stabilizer, or look for one of the IS enabled zooms (Canon 17-55, Sigma 17-50, Tamron 24-70, etc). You'd also gain a constant aperture, which is important for video work, and you'll gain a stop or two from the 15-85 you currently own.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f4L USM - Price Increasing... ??
« on: May 24, 2012, 08:39:22 AM »
I've not been watching prices, but have read this before. However, at least pc prices seem to be *higher* before x-mas because working people want new stuff they can play with during the holidays, and prices only drop afterwards. Is this different in the dslr segment?
I'm going off the price history, and Canon historically does all their rebates and price drops in November (usually before Black Friday) and carries them into Xmas. This year, they went on for quite some time, well into February. Not sure why PC's differ, but for a lot of consumer electronics, that trend is true.

Doesn't mean you can't find deals other times of the year (20% off Canon refurbs, etc), but especially for bigger ticket items, the best time seems to be during those two big rebate periods.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f4L USM - Price Increasing... ??
« on: May 24, 2012, 07:40:03 AM »
I have this lens and I love it. If you check the Canon Price Watch site, you'll see that it took a dip six months or so ago, and looks ready to climb up again. http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00055/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f4L-USM-price.html
Yeah, historically prices are at their lowest right before X-mas (Nov-Dec), and there is also a low-point that comes when they do their summer rebates. In between, the prices rise because the rebates go away, and because Canon wants each "sale" to seem like a good deal each time.

Usually the price increases are at the same time they release their new Rebel (Feb/March), and then they all go on sale in June or July once initial demand is met. This year has been a little odd though, because Canon was more aggressive with sales through Xmas, and they haven't released the new Rebel yet.

- Always use UV filters
- Get LensCoats for any lenses you use, to help keep the body of the lens clean (and provide one more barrier)
In fact, I'd get multiple UV filters so you can swap them in and out...use them like a sports videographer would use a piece of glass for a mud or water-spraying shot.

Another thought, get a rain cover for the camera. There are a bunch of cheap options I've looked at on Amazon (though be hesitant with cheap, thin plastic if it could be exposed to high temperatures), but that would act as a buffer to keep that stuff off your lens and body. Its the same principle.

I agree with the sentiment about the macro lenses, and honestly, anything with more range would probably be helpful. The further you can place the camera from the pan, the better

Point taken, but I guess I shoot a little differently than that. I generally shoot my landscapes on my 70-200 between f/11 and f/16, and my flowing water shots with that lens usually run in the .5 to a full second range. I'm not going to get out and say my way is the best way, but hopefully you get what I'm saying.
Oh, I do too usually (f/8-f/11), especially with the water. At least in ideal situations. But, in a pinch, it's that I can get that shot without a tripod if I don't have one with me. Because 1/30th is that sort of dividing line. Without IS that isn't possible. I take my gear with my while kayaking, and I don't always want to lug my tripod with me.

Same is true of large volume rivers (Potomac at Great Falls comes to mind), where the water is going so fast that 1/15th is plenty to get what you normally need 1/2 second or more to get. I can work my way to frame shots I couldn't with a tripod and still get decent results. Still a niche use, but, worth the extra money for me.

But...but...If you use IS, then you're going to be able to reduce/eliminate camera-shake blur, but not necessarily motion blur. You might get away with handholding at 1/15 sec., but you're still going to capture any movement within that time.
Yeah, but I actually find I use my 70-200 for a lot of landscape shots. I don't always have a tripod with me, but 1/10th or 1/15th is enough to blur a water falling. Or it might be the difference between shooting the landscape at f/4 or f/8.

I went with the IS version because it was sharper, but I think I've found some use for the IS here and there.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 22, 2012, 01:45:42 PM »
I would really like this pancake lens to be f2.0 or even better f1.4 ... also if it would make it a little bigger ... that would make an awesome lens for natural light under difficult conditions and still light to always have with you on a FF body ... f2.8 is too slow here ...
So, you basically want the 35 f/2 or the 35 f/1.4L....Canon already makes those lenses for you. Unless the f/2 is no good and you absolutely have to save that extra 3/4" in lens length; or 7oz is too heavy.

I'd imagine one of the few ways they could make a pancake f/1.4 lens would not involve an EF mount, which would piss people off more than this thing being f/2.8. Or it'd cost more than the 35L, cause it'd have to use some specialty glass to accomplish as much with fewer elements

Also, its not like there are a wealth of low-light pancake lenses out there. I think Samsung has a 30mm f/2, Panasonic has their 20mm f/1.7, there's the Voigtlander 40mm f/2, what else? Most I've seen are at f/2.8, probably for a reason

like paul13walnut5, I also don't see the point of the 24-105 when you have all those other lenses

* 17-40 f/4L (or upgrade to 16-35 f/2.8L)
* 35 f/1.4L
* 50 f/1.8
* 100 macro
* 70-200

looks like a great collection to me

I'd only add the 24-105 or 24-70 if I wanted to have a zoom so I could leave everything else at home, and for some reason I didn't deem the 17-40 good enough for that

as for the 70-200, I think I'd go for one of these:
* canon 70-200 f/4L IS if I want IS and a smaller lens
* tamron 70-200 f/2.8 if I need the speed
* canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II if I have money to spare and don't mind the extra weight
Yeah, I was thinking the same, and depending on your usage, the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS would end up costing you just slightly more than the 24-105 and 70-200 f/4's combined. You've got the wide covered with the 17-40. You've got the normal range covered with primes (35 and 50), and you've got the longer side covered with the 70-200 you get. Depending on how much macro you do, that would decide whether you keep that.

Another play, if you don't want to lug around the heavier 70-200 f/2.8, is to get the 70-200 f/4L IS, then take the $8-900 you'd have spent on the 24-105 and update your 50mm prime and get the 85mm prime. Then you'd be set for low light (primes), landscape (17-40), and portrait/travel (70-200 and primes).

Also, I owned the Tamron 28-75, and I now own the 70-200 f4L IS. There's really no comparison, I liked the Tamron, but I found the AF lacking and the image quality, while nice, doesn't match the L's. If you're other lenses are Canon, you'll notice the difference in color and contrast as well. I love the 70-200, it's on my camera probably 75% of the time.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 22, 2012, 09:59:45 AM »
That said, I would still love to see an updated 35mm f/2 with USM, and perhaps a high quality 50mm f/1.8 or f/2 with USM.
Well, the 50mm f/1.4 has USM, so that would fit your needs in regards to "high quality 50mm", and the price is within this realm (usually <$400). Aside from adding IS, Canon doesnt seem eager to update their non-L primes, so, I wouldn't expect too much. But, an EF mount mirrorless would mean they might start updating primes more, and that'd trickle down to the DSLR side too.
40mm on a 2x crop would be 80mm...  I'm not expecting the mirrorless to be anything more than APS-C, it is just as likely to be the same size as a 4/3rds sensor, EF-M ?  (micro) in a way of beating Nikon on sensor size (Nikon 1), but not suffering a problem of having to build masses of new lenses, as it would be EF or EF-S comparable.

So, could we also expect a cheap 12mm and 24mm pancake too ?, giving 24mm and 48mm focal lengths ?
I was thinking the same thing originally. This would be the portrait lens, and then they'd have a few other pancakes and a 14-42 and 14-100+ zoom that would come out eventually too. But, that there haven't been any rumors, and I don't really remember patents for them, so who knows

Pages: 1 ... 43 44 [45] 46 47 ... 53